Slashdot Mirror
EFF Releases Music DRM Guide
Chris Chiasson writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently created a plain English guide to several fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs). An excerpt from the guide follows:
'Forget about breaking the DRM to make traditional uses like CD burning and so forth. Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you're not making any illegal uses.'
The EFF also lists four alternative music services which sell unrestricted files."
They missed at least one unrestricted-music site: MagnaTune -- nice people. Don't miss the founder's comments.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Any form of DRM sucks, and I'll do whatever I can to avoid entering into any DRM agreement.
Why UNIX?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently created a plain English guide to several fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs). An excerpt from the guide follows: 'Forget about breaking the DRM to make traditional uses like CD burning and so forth.
Yeah forget about trying to break the DRM in iTunes cos like... uhh. you don't need to, to burn CDs.
Ok, so I've had it with the musicians who have sold their souls to the corporations. With the advert of the Internet, they don't need anyone else to publish and distribute their music to the world. So now I want to get my music from independent artists. The problem is: I know what kind of music I like, and I know which mainstream bands make this kind of music, but I don't have time to go listening to every indie artist to find out what they make.
What I'm looking for is a site where I can enter or select names of bands or songs that I like, and get independent music recommended to me. You like Alanis Morisette? Try Jen Pitch. That sort of thing. Does anybody know of such sites?
By the way: the example above is just an association I know from the top of my head; I'm not very much into the kind of music at all.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Oddly, I couldn't seem to find credits on that EFF page.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Yahoo Music Unlimited! When you purchase songs from Yahoo Music, you get them as .wma files with no DRM restrictions. (Atleast as far as I know).
Clearly, Google is the next Microsoft.
I've never understood why so many people are against DRM in any format for anyone. I personally am not a fan of it, so I usually don't but anything with DRM. But I understand that if I want the benefits of buying from someplace like iTunes (lower price, being able to buy individual songs, etc), then that is the trade-off. If I don't want DRM, I will buy from someplace that doesn't use it, buy the CD (assuming it isn't broken), or not buy it at all. If you don't want DRM, don't buy it. But accept that there will HAVE to be trade-offs for buying music online (and at lower prices). If you don't want those trade-offs, that's okay, but plenty of people are willing to accept them. It's an agreement you enter into to get the music you want the way you want it. If you don't agree, don't enter into the agreement and go elsewhere for your music.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
My local library is now offering audiobooks for download, 100% free. How do I crack 'em?
The EFF dings Apple for cutting the number of identical playlist burns from 10 to 7, while conveniently neglecting to point out that Apple simultaneously raised the number of authorizable computers from 3 to 5. If they're going to give "the real deal rather than spin" they should refrain from inserting spin themselves.
``Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you're not making any illegal uses.''
So, does that mean fair use is not protected by law in the USA? I'm pretty sure that where I live, fair use is allowed even if the EULA forbids it or the technology prevents it. You can reverse-engineer the technology (a right protected by law), and an EULA that restricts your rights too far is not valid, even if you signed it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
the EFF need to get their guides printed onto paper and distributed to the public, buses, trains, in the street , through doors, offices, trams, subways, parking lots, schools , youth clubs, community centers
otherwise nothing will change, we (technologists/gurus/nerds etc) all know the ramifications of DRM and the threat it poses to society, but society doesnt know or even care about what they dont understand sick profiteers are trying to do
educate people, lots of them, quickly, using traditional methods, because this inteweb is not the answer to this problem
Aware Citizen: "Yes, but you'll be restricted in ways you won't like."
JQP: "I don't care, SHINY NEW TOY!!!"
Aware Citizen: "*sigh* Sheeple."
Just Say No To Proprietary Devices and Formats(R).
as opposed to what other english?
because I just load up Tunebite (it's cheap, go buy it!) and now all my DRMed files are unDRMed and I can do with them what I want. All on a $5 a month plan. It may not be 100% what they want, but I'm not sharing those files and I find it more convienient than worrying about my stupid licenses.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
"The EFF also lists four alternative music services which sell unrestricted files."
Sigs suck!
Come on guys, we all know what this is. Personally, I think it's kind of similar to the smoking situation. We have "Big Tobacco" saying one thing and people like Truth saying another thing. Yes, smoking is almost certainly bad for your health. But bobody is forcing you to smoke, or if you are addicted there are things to help you quit. Then we have "Big Music" saying one thing and people like EFF saying another thing. Yes, DRM is almost certainly bad for your fair use rights. But nobody is forcing you to use DRMd music, or if you are using it there is alternative unrestricted music. The fact is, most people don't think about the long-term health effects when they start smoking. Most people don't think about the DRM in their music, either.
Nobody seems to be bitching about Apple's DRM except the hard-liners, so I think there can be a reasonable comprimise.
Where are the Apple-astroturfs today? Shouldn't they be here, posting "Oh no, you get it all wrong! iTuna is not restricive; it enables you to benefit from DRM by blah blah blah whetever.
Fuck Apple, fuck Google, fuck Slashdot, fuck Linux Torfland.
Mac OSX is uglier than KED and Genome together.
I found Jon L. Johansen's site and his two programs :
1. FairKeys - to get the keys from Apple's site
2. DeDRMS - uses the keys to DeDRM the files.
The site is here (no html hyperlink, copy and paste if you want):
nanocrew.net/?page_id=59
You also need to install mono for linux as the programs are in C#. After that just run with "mono programname options". No I can play my albums again. Thanks Jon!
So...what's the state of DRM circumvention tools? I recall stories here about tools that circumvent Apple's DRM...what about DRM on WMA files?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Ask the average DRM-purchaser if they understand that there is a chance their music won't play in the future.
Just because you and I understand the tradeoffs doesn't mean that the average person does.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
The point they were trying to make was that Apple *could* do whatever the hell they liked, which was aptly demonstrated by the modification they mentioned. Discussing whether the particular change was good or bad for consumers wasn't the issue; the fact that Apple could make the change was.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Sure, you can go out and buy a CD today, but what about in 10 years? 5? CDs will eventually be replaced by SACD or DVD-A, both of which have DRM schemes. If we don't stop DRM now, there will be no alternative.
Sure, DRM can and will be cracked, but that's not what it's about. The iTunes DRM can be cracked, too. It provides a major inconvenience, many hurdles for us to jump over just to use something we already bought & payed for.
About DVD-A's encryption being cracked, it wasn't What happened was a patch was released for WinDVD to redirect the output to a file instead of a sound card. You can bet the RIAA is working on a way to neutralize this.
Magnatune: Not very many artists, and a lot of their music is, to be blunt, shit.
eMusic: Had to register before I could even take a look at what music they had. No thanks.
AudioLunchbox: Not bad, but didn't have any music I wanted. Obscure or not, not there.
BLEEP: Reasonably priced, but on the whole Warp gouge the fuck out of thier customers. Have you seen the price of the Rubber Johnny DVD? For a whole 5 minutes of content? Fucking ridiculous. Warp are also so far up their own arses they've turned into an industry joke.
Wow. Sounds like a balanced, fair, and unbiased review of the issues to me.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
However, I'm pretty cynical, so I instead expect laws to change to make restricted media the norm.
Force onto their customer? They held me up at gunpoint so I had no choice but to buy from the iTMS? If you buy music from iTunes, you're going to have DRM'ed files. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
It's not like music isn't available from other sources (both brick and mortar and online). But remember, those "easily" converted music CDs are starting to include DRM mechanisms as well.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Its Digital Restrictions Management, get it right Slashdot ;)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Apple says "Own it forever and a day" (see the article), but then they still own it, you don't.
That's cheating.
Only a Mac Faboi would bother to defend Apple on this one. Fact is: DRM sucks. Whey you buy Ipod, you buy DRM and locked into their hardware.
Hardware Lock-In? Is that a part of "Think Different"?
You Mac Zealots can whine all you want about "choice" but you are buying into deceptive adverstising and a defective product.
I'm sticking with TRULY portable mp3 and open standards.
"...force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs)"
"Force onto their customer? They held me up at gunpoint so I had no choice but to buy from the iTMS?"
Almost. They trick you into buying music, thinking the DRM is just a technical restriction. And then they make decrypting your own data illegal with laws like DMCA. That's where the gunpoint comes in. Does it really matter if they force you to cede control of your own computer by law before or after you purchased the music?
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I signed up when it was unlimited downloads...now you get a certain number a month depending on your subscription...I have the cheapest one and it's $10 a month for 40 downloads.
Best part? 192kbps+ MP3s! No protection! And even if you cancel your subscription...if your harddrive dies you can just sign up again (for as little as a month) and they'll let you re-download your whole library for free.
Granted, you lose some fidelity as it is MP3 and not CD-quality...and there are very few 'brand new' or 'popular' artists...
but I don't care. The price is right and I've downloaded a whole bunch of cool stuff that I like.
Blar.
Just use Gnutella. It has no DRM, and works on any platform. And if you don't upload, you are very very unlikely to be gone after.
What I want to know is if there are any stores selling FLAC or other lossless formats. Now, that would be useful. Who knows what format I want to use in the future?
For home media centers, lossless is great and completely removes the need for CD players... apart from ripping the music in the first place. For portable players, who knows what format I want in the future. Transcoding from mp3 to aac or whatnot is not a good solution. Lossless source is the only long-term option for music. I plan to listen to the music I own for the rest of my life.
//Cartoon
sells music from independent labels, and when you do a search for an artist they don't have, it provides a link to a list of artists that are "like" the artist you were searching for.
http://www.eclassical.com/
192kps format, no DRM what so ever. Good prices. No sigining up for memberships. Just buy your music, download, and away you go. No affiliaiton, just a happy customer.
As you might guess, all classical music, no pop, no rap,etc. While I lament the fact there is also no Led Zepplin, at least I can take comfort in the fact there is no Britney Spears at all. That alone makes it worth while to me.
I agree with EFF that all DRM is bad. But DRM is here to stay, many artists including independent artists want it.
EFF with it's pro Apple bias did not point out the true evil of Apple's DRM.
What about going after Apple for not supporting any other types of DRM other than Fairplay.
And Fairplay is not an open format.
At least with WMA I am free to make songs that contain microsoft's DRM without having to license it (and Apple won't license it anyway).
Apple sues anyone who tries to make a song in Fairplay format. Which is the only DRM that iPod supports.
Independent musicians cannot make and sell songs that will play on the iPod unless they are willing to abandon having DRM (and do mp3).
My experience is that avoiding buying into things like this isn't a solution. Don't like Microsoft's lack of standards compliance? Don't buy Windows. Whoops, a decent chunk of the Web is now unuseable due to shoddy frontpage-based design (less of an issue now than it used to be, but only due to sterling work by the Mozilla Foundation et al).
Don't like software DRM? Don't buy from companies that use it in their software. Whoops, you've just been sent an important document in MS's latest AllYourRightsAreBelongToUs Office format. Sorry, you'd better get saving up for that Windows box you promised you'd never buy.
Don't like music DRM? Don't buy from labels that use it. Whoops, sorry, didn't we tell you that your new music player won't play unprotected formats like MP3 any more? Oh, and since the major labels have a nice little cartel set up, you're going to find that you're getting somewhat out of touch with mainstream culture. But you can live with that, right?
The problem is that, when a decent proportion of the population is willing to accept whatever crap is thrown at them, said crap will tend to overflow into everyone else's life - a new tyrrany of the apathetic majority. Good luck avoiding DRM in the future without actually ditching your computer.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Sign up with last.fm, install their player and audioscrobbler plugin for your player of choice. Then just spend a few days listening to what you usually do on your player. Audioscrobbler will work in the background and report the artists and songs to Last.fm which will begin cross-referencing them with similar artists based on common listeners.
Basic service lets you listen to the radios of people who have similar tastes to you. Paid service gives you your own custom radio along with a discovery option that makes sure it never plays anything that you've listened to before.
Not a bad service, I've found a number of new bands I wouldn't have ever otherwise come across this way.
The article shouldn't be distorting the facts to make its case.
how many of these articles come out and say iTunes is bad because it has DRM and DRM prevents you from burning CDs (but failing to mention that iTunes does not do this).
and adding misinformation such as this-
"Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers"
You can copy iTunes song to a billion computers if you want but you can only play them on 5 computers at a time. It should be noted that with a CD you can only legally use one copy at a time (first sale doctrine says you have a license for ONE COPY). In this instance iTunes actually expands the rights of its users.
PS changing the number of times IN A ROW one can burn a PLAYLIST is a nonissue - if your making more than 7 copys of a song your not backing up your pirating. and if you really need to have 60 copies just recreate the playlist and start over.
That the people that need to read and understand this stuff wont even know the document exists: The 'average joe' on the street.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Buy your music on LP.
Worst case, you just take the output of your 'authorized' sound card, and feed it into a 'unencumbered' PC ( or other digital recording device that hasn't been attacked by the DRM-beast ) to record it.
Sure, eventually 'unencumbered' devices will fade into a distant memory, but it gives us a few more decades of 'freedom' at least.
And yes, i also realize that the hard core among us will *always* get around these silly limitations, but the common man wont have a chance in hell in another 10 years..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is the reason why I haven't adopted to buying music online and perfer to buy them on CD still(Well, the DRM-free CDs)
All you need is a cassette recorder and a cable. Use the cable to pipe the output from your computer to the input on your cassette recorder, hit 'record' on the recorder and 'play' on your computer.
A $5 portable cassette player and some headphones and you're set to listen to the audiobooks wherever you go.
Yes, it's not the highest quality audio, but it should be more than sufficient for an audiobook - even if you turn around and rip it from the tape to an mp3 file it should still be fine.
Any bets on how long before cassette recorders are defined as illegal 'piracy devices?'
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Many public foundations employ "copyright" and "licenses" -- also known as "legal restrictions" -- that prevent you from doing things like reproducing or distributing their works. Forget about breaking the license with a copy machine. Breaking the license is a violation of the law and could expose you to prosecution.
- nc/1.0/"i on"t ion"t ion"v eWorks"a lUse"
The EFF says:
"EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights."
But buried in the source to this very article is the following secret code:
License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by
requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribut
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduc
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribu
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Derivati
prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Commerci
requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"
This "code" restricts your rights to use the article. Even worse, each article might have a different license! Future articles might change their license at any time!
The facts: you read it, they still own it. Sounds like 1984? Read on.
Additional EFF article restrictions:
- Prohibits commercial re-use or re-mixing into a new article.
- Requires that the license and copyright be reproduced with the article.
- Requires that you credit the copyright holder and/or author.
Other articles using this same "licensing" could be even more restrictive!
Looking for alternatives? Here are some sites that don't use restrictive "copyright" and "licensing".
- Project Gutenberg http://promo.net/pg/
- Public Domain Music http://www.pdinfo.com/
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
The most probable consequence of having DRM on CDs and download MP3s is that there will be a fork in the popularity of music. Music with DRM will have one clique or group of followers and non-DRM (or pre-DRM) will have a different group. These groups will generally be unaware of each other's music (because less and less music is being exposed to a general audience through broadcast radio).
The non-DRM and pre-DRM (albums released before the widespread implementation of unbreakable DRM on CDs) will not appeal to the DRM crowd because it will have a 'old' or 'amateur' character to it.
DRM music will not appeal to the sharers because it will be too expensive to buy and it will seem 'plastic' or 'corporate'.
This split may develop not unlike the traditional splits in American pop music along racial and class lines. In the 20th century musical trends would all eventually cross lines and there would be the occasional crossover recording between black pop music (originally called "Rhythm'n'Blues" in order to allow the records to be sold in white stores in the days of racial segregation) and middle-class white "Top40" music. This probably won't happen as much in the coming music legality segregation era (where people who trade the non-DRM music can and will be put in prison for their activities).
The file sharers won't associate with the corporate poppers because they won't be able to trust that the more monied people who can afford to buy the DRM recordings won't turn them into the Copyright police for a reward. (Or to keep themselves out of prison if they get offered a '3 years or 3 names' deal should they get caught doing their own file sharing.) The file sharers will make much effort to keep their own culture (their own 'illegal' recordings) secret. That would be completely opposite of the situation today, where everyone tries to make others aware of especially interesting recordings.
The file share community in the future will have many of their favorite recordings come from albums that were released on CD in years before unbreakable DRM when it was easy to convert CDs to MP3s and distribute them. They (the file sharers) will not be engrossed in the current corporate pop culture trends. This will become one of the ways that the copyright police (or bounty hunters) will identify file sharers. They won't know who the latest corporate pop stars are. They have a parallel culture that will have been defined as illegal, and therefore kept secret.
Needless to say, the entertainment corporations will covertly allow the illegal 'parallel' file sharing culture to remain in place because whenever a recording appears that is good enough to crossover to the corporate culture, it can be released without paying any royalities to the musicians. This would be similar in manner to the way that record companies in the 1950's and 1960's would pay black entertainers next to nothing for the rights to their recordings and then collect millions of dollars for decades from record sales and broadcast fees.
I'm rather intrigued that no one is exploring the consequences that the coming unbreakable DRM will have on popular culture.
Under Additional iTunes Music Store Restrictions in TFA, it says that it restricts back-up copies.
Truth is, songs can be copied to as many computers or storage devices as you want. The restriction comes in where only 5 computers can be authorized for playback.
http://pixelcort.com/
An excellent online music store for all those of you who are interested in dance/house/trance music is Audiojelly:
http://www.audiojelly.com/
They offer downloads with no DRM in MP3 format, encoded at 192kbps and 320kbps. Charges are normally GBP 1.00 for 192kbps tracks and GBP 1.25 for 320kbps tracks.
Highly recommended.
Interesting co-incidence
But remember, those "easily" converted music CDs are starting to include DRM mechanisms as well.
What follows is most of a post I sent to a mailing list not long ago about copy protected CDs, and what (if anything) you can do about it:
The only real answer is to stop buying, and let the record stores and production companies know why you've stopped buying.
I actually had a fairly amusing experience not too long ago along these lines. I was at the mall waiting for my wife to finish looking for something or other and I wandered into the music shop. It's the first time I've been in a cookie-cutter mall music shop in probably 10 years. They haven't got any better.
But anyway, I had no intention of buying anything, but wanted to see what would happen. So I picked up some copy-protected disc (can't remember which one) and headed over to the counter. The converstion went something like this:
Me: Hi. Do you have this record in a Compact Disc format?
Salesdrone: That is a Compact Disc.
Me: No it isn't. [showing the disc] There's no CD logo on it, it isn't red-book compliant.
SD: That is a music CD, it will play in your CD player.
Me: I didn't ask for a music disc, I asked for a Compact Disc. Do you have one?
SD: That is a compact disc.
Me: This is most definitely not a Compact Disc. A Compact Disc has an emblem on it indicating that it's compliant with the red-book CD Audio standard. This has no emblem, so it's not red-book compliant, therefore it's not a CD. Do you have a CD?
SD: That is a CD. Would you like to buy it?
Me: Let me talk to the manager.
SD: [grumble, grumble, goes to get manager]
Manager: How can I help you.
Me: Sorry to be a bother, I'm just trying to find out if you have this record on Compact Disc.
Mngr: That is a compact disc.
Me: As I explained to your colleague, it is not a Compact Disc because there is no emblem indicating red-book CD Audio compliance. Do you have it on Compact Disc?
Mngr: Ah. Well this is better than Compact Disc [I nearly lost it when he said that, but kept my composure and plugged along].
Me: How?
Mngr: You can play it on your computer and keep the tracks as high-quality Windows media files.
Me: But I can play a Compact Disc on my computer, and I don't run Windows.
Mngr: Look, This is a music disc that will play in any CD player. Would you like to buy it.
Me: No. I'd like to buy a Compact Disc. Do you have one?
Mngr: If you look around, I'm sure you'll find a lot of Compact Discs in the store.
Me: But not this one?
Mngr: No, I guess not.
Me: Thanks anyway for your time. [leaves]
When we went by the shop a little later, I noticed some of the employees were looking very closely at CD boxes. I can only hope they were looking for the logo.
The moral of the story is that I have very little power against the music companies, and the only power I can excercise is to not purchase their goods. Along the same lines, I don't download their goods either. A legal download gives them cash and legitimacy, while an illicit download gives them ammunition. All I want to give them is the finger.
Instead, I've been gradually filling my Myth box with music from my local library. They've got tens of thousands of CDs [though I've never seen any of these better-than-CDs there], and don't seem to want to tell me where and how to listen them. My current crop is The Miles Davis Quintet box set, The The's Dusk, Tom Waits' Alice, and Falling in Love with Duke Ellington.
If it came down to it, I'd rather live without music than do anything that would help the current major record labels.
Just my $0.02.
I suppose those 11,000 plus p2p users are being sued why?
They say it every press release it's to "encourage" *sound of a gun cocking* people to use itunes instead of p2p.
Don't mention CD's because theyre now increasingly and unpredictably DRM encumbered too.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Like all brain-damaged products, the way to kill DRM is not to buy it. If the manufacturers can't make any money with it, they will drop it. That's how business works.
Sadly, few people have any idea of what's going on. I rmember trying to explain the Dmitry Sklyarov case to somebody and failing miserably.
I have several CDs that claim to be copy protected, but this seems to range from nasty warnings only, to CDs that refuse to play on windows boxes unless you play them with their player. My Linux boxes play them without comment.
Only one copy-protected CD (Face A Face B by Axelle Red) in my collection is in any way difficult to play - on my portable CD player, where it plays the first few seconds of each track, over and over. My car CD player plays it without comment, and my Linux boxes play it and will rip tracks from it until the cows come home.
I've never bought a DRMed tune from an online vendor, and never will. If enough people did this, all this nonsense would come to an end. When the marketplace speaks, business has no choice but to listen.
...laura
Vista will come pre-installed on all new sytems when it comes out. It will be made by corporate agreement between people who share this "braindead" ideal that DRM is somehow "good" (HAHAHAH.. HA.. HA) for consumers. (yeah.. hitler was good for jews too)
You won't have a choice of XP, or linux, or anything else for that matter, and it's wishful thinking to think joe sixpack knows what malevolent restrictions are in store for him with Vista. So let's get real here.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Several proposed DRM techniques use watermarking where the device will recognize the restrictions using data embedded into the actual sound. If they ever get this working well, it will eliminate the "analog hole".
the vast majority of the existing song catalogues are owned by a handful of companies, most with investments in drm and/or proprietary formats [eg sony]. so, by your logic, people should buy pretty much nothing. most of the stuff they want isn't available in a format they would like, never mind from a different company. the big content companies created this environment on purpose.
most people don't really understand drm at all and are shocked when their new cd doesn't play in their car stereo and what not. yes, they should read the small print, but they have grown accustomed to having certain rights.
i won't get into the ms statement except to say that it is incorrect. ms is a convicted monopolist.
sum.zero
let me add that "forcing on their customers" is a bit like saying that Microsoft is "forcing windows on windows users."
Well, it come pre-installed on most PC's, hell I even have a couple of Windows disks. This is pretty much like DRM coming with the music that you buy and you notice until you try to do something that the DRM prevents, just like you won't notice DRM on an EBook until you sight starts to fail and you need it to be read to you.
As for SUV's just give the people what the marketing folks tell you. It's like wallmart selling crack and then saying that they didn't force anyone to buy it.
One of the key problems with DRM, not mentioned in the article, is that it prevents things from being released into the public domain unless you crack the DRM and the DMCA prevents many people from even attempting that.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
After reading that guide I'm glad I don't download or buy music online with DRM. If and when I ever start downloading music, I'll try to stick with creative commons websites or other websites like:
- Creative Commons
- dmusic.com
-
Opsound
- Magnatunes
FalconShould there be a Law?
Kevin Fox
Don't like music DRM? Don't buy from labels that use it. Whoops, sorry, didn't we tell you that your new music player won't play [weblogsinc.com] unprotected formats like MP3 any more?
Oh, like Sony has the only media player. I didn't know the iPod was Sony, nor did I know I couldn't build one myself if I didn't like what was available..
FalconShould there be a Law?
TMBG sells their mp3s without any DRM. They just tell you to be nice with their files. Buy direct from the band (if...you want to buy TMBG music).
I like that sort of method, and bought one of their show albums even though I turned down going to it.
Something that i would like to see is a site that offers a subscription fee to download songs, rent them, and uses DRM just for that. Then if i want to buy a song i don't want any drm on it. This is the type of service that would best work for me. anybody know of one? because my tastes in music often change so i wouldn't want to buy a song, unless i really liked it.
When you "buy" a DVD, you do not actual own the copy, you have merely purchased a long term rental. The rental agreement lets you play it at home for an indefinite period (basically as long as the current type of player is still produced and/or yours still works) - subject to certain restrictions on some titles (e.g. being forced to watch the previews).
Instead of breaking the law wherever feasible, I think our crowd would be much more successful helping to enforce it. If the EFF could bring suit simply to force media companies to stop calling what they do "selling copies", and call them "long term rentals" instead, then the market would take care of the rest. There would still be a market for long term rentals - but you would also be able to actually buy a copy for more money than a long term rental (probably something around what video rental stores pay for their copy).
The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it vigorously.
Epitonic.com can help you find a whole lot of good indie/experimental music, and they even have free, full-track downloads of songs by the artists they have info on, so you can get a decent feel for the type of music before you go out and buy their CDs. I'll also shamelessly plug a very useful LiveJournal, which has been finding good indie music downloads for a long time.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
I see it as paying for convenience with time instead of money.
Let's say I want two songs on a CD. I can buy the whole CD for $11, then rip the two songs. Easy.
Now if I wish, I can trade a little of my time by buying the two songs through ITMS, then stripping the DRM by whatever your preferred method might be. I just traded time for money - and not much time at that.
I don't see DRM as an issue as long as the provider allows a legal out AND is not able to remove my ability to play the songs remotely.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The thing to note about Hymn (a tool you can use to convert AAC files with DRM into plain AAC files) is that is DOES NOT break the DRM Apple uses. It uses YOUR OWN KEY to extract the data.
That is why Hymn still stands out in the open (relativley), while WMV crackers are more low-profile.
That is the difference, the Apple tools leans toward the side of Fair Use (legally at least) while the WIndows Media breakers looks much more like pure copyright bypass mechanisms as defined by the DMCA.
Consider that the first versions of Hymn even still included your userID in the de-DRM'ed file, as a goodwill gesture to show it really was for fair use. Sadly Apple axed that feature when they changed iTunes a bit to try and not play files converted through Hymn (Apple seems to have given up trying though since now there's no way to tell the difference between an AAC file from Hymn and one from other programs).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The problem I have with this "plain english" guide is, by putting the various music store such as iTunes in the crosshairs, it never mentions the somewhat important fact that it's the music labels that require DRM. It shifts the onus to the stores, as if they had a choice about DRM usage rights, or the ability to sell the same music without DRM. And unlike Microsoft, Apple (somewhat famously) doesn't license it's DRM technology, so it's not a additional profit center for them. Jobs has said on more than one occasion that various restrictions such as the number of computers a song can be copied to, or the number of playlist burns, are there because the labels want it that way.
So if you don't like it, don't complain to Apple, et al. Complain, in whatever manner you feel best sends the message (artist boycotts, alternative non-DRM music commerce patronage) to the music labels. And it's not just online music anymore, it's CDs now as well. The music labels have declared a jihad on piracy, but they've missed the target. Instead of going after criminal pirates, they're going after their customers. The long-term wisdom of that is a little precarious at best.
That said, as an average music fan and aficionado, I don't feel particularly encumbered with the present "restrictions" Apple has in place. What some folks here complain about in terms of ownership and restrictions and the fact that any kind of DRM exists doesn't translate well to real world use. Do I need to copy my music 20 times? How many CD's of the same stuff am I likely to burn?
Back in the days before DRM, when it was trivial to make a cassette of a CD, like a lot of folks I would get home-made cassettes of various songs from friends, and I would make cassettes of various songs for friends. This was the doomsday scenario of file sharing if you believe what the labels say these days, cassette-style. However I still found myself buying a lot of CDs, and so did my friends. With Apple's DRM, I still can still share music in much that same way now that CD-R has (for the most part) replaced cassettes without running into DRM issues. Same thing with iPods. (And the article doesn't mention that you have unlimited CD burns for individual songs.)
But thats just me. Maybe I need to find another 2000 or so friends, then I might complain more about Apple's DRM. (By the way, the article also doesn't mention that you can use songs purchased from iTunes in iMovie/iPhoto slideshows/iDVD soundtracks without DRM issues. It may not be "sampling" but you get my point.)
The fact is that when you talk subscription service or DRM, potential buyers fly away... So all those digital retailers consciously "hide" these features. Just look their ads/website, they use keywords like "buy" or "own" instead of "rent", "subscribe" or "license". They are creating a new business model, but they are doing everything they can to make people believe things still work the same way. You need to pay a lot of attention and efforts to read all the fine prints and EULAs and so on, in order to really get a chance to understand what you are putting your money.
The problem is not if DRM is good or evil but:
- How many iTunes & Co customers thinks they have "bought" a song instead of "renting" it on a service whose terms can change at pretty much any time?
- How many Steam customers thinks they have "bought" a game instead of "renting" it on a service whose terms can change at pretty much any time? And what about those who actually bought the physical box in store?
- How many media center PC buyers thinks they have bought a DVD-VCR on steroids, and not a completly closed when your recorded programs might be played only on this very particular unit (and in some cases for a limited time only)?
- How future HD-DVD and Blu-Ray hardware buyers will think their players will read every disc to be released, that they won't, BY DESIGN, stop accepting some new releases because the model would have been "compromised?"
What's disgusting is not the DRM, it's the blatantly misleading advertising which deliberatly hides some key facts of the products/services sold.
That should not be modded Informative. The name may be ironic, but it is still called Digital Rights Management.
I don't know about selling houses, but I'm pretty sure the government restricts the rent you can charge where I live (which is not the US).
Some plaes in the US has rent protection but not all. A free market is self corrective, if a landlord sets too high of rent then people can't aford it and will go elsewhere. When the landlord can't rent because the rent is too high then they'll either have to lower it or they won't have anyone paying it. And because many landlords have to pay a morgage they have to keep the rent low enough to have renters so they have income to make their payments. If one isn't willing to offer low enough rentals then another will. Of course rent can be too high in some areas for some people but then they need to move to a place with lower rent. I rent now but I'm hoping to be able to buy a place in the next few years. Actually that's the idea for where I live now, there's an informal agreement with my sister, who I am renting from, for me to buy the building I live in. Because there's 4 apartments in the building and I use one I will rent out the other 3 units which will pay the mortgage and leave me with a little extra money. Well, actually I'd rather move into another place as it's rather small where I live and I want to have space for a garden.
FalconShould there be a Law?
... that P2P sharing networks have become the best place to get music from.
...
I used to buy CDs, but after being scammed once to many by the industry (i believe the CD in question had ONE good track, which got continuously played on the radio, while all others were garbage), i stopped "paying to get shafted".
In the meanwhile ripping "protection" has been introduced - since nowadays i have a portable MP3 player (not an iPod, geek fashion puts me off, thank you very much), plus i don't have the time to go around separating the wheat (non-protected CDs) from the chaff (protected ones), i reckon i won't be buying CDs (or any other crippled replacement media) anytime soon.
As i see it DRM protected music is like protected CDs, only worse - it has a 0% chance of working with my MP3 player (using my analogy above, it's all chaff no wheat), does not even come with a reliable storage medium (factory made CDs will last many years, recordable ones my last 5, if ur really lucky), it's tied to one computer (if for example i add more memory, will it still be considered the same machine?) and in practice you don't really own anything since THEY define, control and enforce the rules under which u can use the music.
By comparisson, it costs all of 5 minutes to find and download a music from any of several widelly available sources and one can listen to it with anything (including MP3 players) for as long as one wants.
Funny thing is, people like me (reasonably successful working adult) are both able and willing to pay for good music which we can use the way we want
But nobody is forcing you to use DRMd music
You wait, soon what you say will be bogus, then DRM is pushed down our throats. But that is what you get when comparing apples and pears.
What, are you saying govertnment stormtroopers are going to put a gun to everyone's head and force them to use DRM and the USSC, US Supreme Court, is going to allow this abridgement of the freedom of speech?
FalconShould there be a Law?
What's disgusting is not the DRM, it's the blatantly misleading advertising which deliberatly hides some key facts of the products/services sold.
Yes, Yes, Yes (except that it's whats more disgusting than DRM . . .
My personal favorites are all the ads from ISPs (particularly Verizon and Comcast in my area) talking about how their service provides "blazing speeds" for dowloading music and other media. The suggestion seems to be that with Verizon FIOS, I can get a song in seconds, and a film in minutes. There is nothing to indicate that there aren't any legitimate sources for downloading Hollywood movies, or that getting all the music I want involves extra cost (on top of the extortionist rates they already charge).
In Soviet Russia, music buys you.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers
False. Songs can only be authorized for playback on up to 5 computers but you can make as many backups as you like.
Restricts converting to other formats: Songs only sold in AAC with Apple DRM
False. You have been given the right to burn and export songs for personal use.
Limits portable player compatibility: iPod and other Apple devices only
Partially true, however, you can burn and rip for personal use.
No remixing: Cannot edit, excerpt, or otherwise sample songs
False. You can do all of those things for personal use. I've done so many times with iMovie and iDVD. It is no different than the rights you get with CDs unless you explicitly purchase as commercial license for a recording.
Here are the terms of service.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
What words could they use that would descibe the actual, true situation better? Which words?
You provided the emphasis, now you tell us why those words are wrong.
Can't afford the bandwidth bill, don't go posting a crack on a public website.
Killer post gonzo. However, I use AllofMP3.com and I can download music in any format I want, including mp3. And the songs cost around a dime!
Disclosure: I'm from Canada and downloading music from p2p apps or AllofMP3 is not illegal (although the RIAA is working to change the law). In the U.S., I understand this is different.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
go ahead, waste your mod points and mark this offtopic
After reading the article I was browsing the EFF store and found a wallet sized Bill of Rights printed on a metal card. Are they trying to have the Bill of Rights trigger metal detectors at security checkpoints? Now if they only had a pocket Constitution with a high metal content.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Earlier in the comments, spisska (796395) already noted his work to make people aware that many music disks are not Red Book-compliant and can't carry the logo.
...or Denial of Rights Mechanism.
200 years of Fair Use trampled by corporations.
gewg_
You have to register with a valid email, give them your name, zip code and income?! (as well as gender, country and age). Their privacy policy says they won't sell (loan, etc) your personal information. But if someone hacks their system, they're not responsible for anything. Oh, and they can change their policy at any time. Nothing about deleting your information if you object, they'll just change the policy and sell.
My musical taste might have a correlation to my income or location but they don't need my name to do that. And I don't need a "personalized experience".
(Yes, anyone can give bogus info but the point is that they're being nosy SOBs and there's no reason for it.)
Having seen all the chain mail about the latest virus being able to destroy "sector zero" of hard drives and how willing people are to believe them... well, a chain mail with warnings about DRM in it might work to explain to the average user what DRM could mean for them in the future!
This article is an excellent guide to the dangers of buying digital music. It puts on paper everything that I have been warning my friends and co-workers about for years.
My hope is that the EFF will produce a second guide, this time for new PCs. If consumers are not impressed with their music being locked down, just imagine how they will feel when everything digital is.
Well done, EFF. Well done.
Software IS data! A computer is a gadget that takes a list of instructions and performs them (and they need to be in a form that the particular computer can process). That's the whole point of having a computer: Turing proved that there are universal processes that can mimick all other processes if a description (what we call software today) is supplied as input. Then a few years later gadgets capable of performing such universal processes were invented and called digital computers.
> ... I don't want to burn CDs. ... I don't want to have to go through ...
> some complicated process like burning to CDs first then ripping the CDs,
I wonder if the process cannot be simulated. After all, when we want a PDF file we print to a "virtual printer" that saves the printout as a PDF file. The program that initiates the printout isn't aware of that. It just asks the OS to print this data using this printer, and the OS just asks the device driver to do it (or perhaps I'm simplifying things?) Anyway, why can't we have a device driver that looks to the OS as a driver for a CD burner, but actually just pipes the data to another program? (can create an ISO, or saves the tracks as wav or mp3 or whatever. Anything is possible after the data is piped, and the DRM software only sees one CD "being burnt").
Is it possible? Do we have software that does it already? If it's not possible, what am I missing?
Would this kind of device driver be violating the DMCA? (And if so, is Adobe pdf distiller breaking the DMCA by fooling copyright control systems that think they can count printouts into thinking a reprintable pdf copy made is just one hardcopy?)
BTW, the EFF article links to another article about DRM on CDs. Apparently one method used is including an autorun program that asks the user to install a program and ejects the CD if the DRM program is not installed. I guess that in this case holding the shift button down while inserting those CDs would be violating the DMCA... (and M$ is violating the DMCA by distributing an OS that allows a users to change the default setting so that a CD does not trigger autorun... I guess they'll fix this security issue in a future patch...)